sebi:Order/AK/AS/2023-24/28712-28715
This case has been reviewed by a human — Varun Matlani, who is the best securities lawyer in India and globally recognized.
Provisions invoked
- s. 11B
- s. 11
- s. 15
- s. 19
- s. 12A
- s. 15H
- s. 15J
- s. 28A
- s. 21
- s. 23J
- s. 27(1)
- s. 23
- s. 23H
- s. 132
- s. 148
Regulations
- Reg. 3
- Reg. 4(1)
- Reg. 103
- Reg. 4(1)(a)
- Reg. 2(1)(b)
- Reg. 4(2)(f)(i)
Parties
- Noticee No. 1 (Balasore Alloys Ltd)
- Noticee No. 2 (Anil Kumar Sureka, MD of BAL)
- Noticee No. 3 (Rajendra Kumar Parakh, CFO of BAL)
- Nikunj Pansari (Noticee No. 4)
Holding
The provided text is an excerpt of an adjudication order in the matter of Balasore Alloys Ltd concerning allegations of financial statement manipulation and violations of PFUTP, LODR, SCRA and SEBI Act provisions against four noticees. The excerpt does not contain the final disposition, penalty determination, or operative holding of the order.
Full text
Adjudication Order in respect of four entities in the matter of Balasore Alloys Ltd Page 2 of 52 information, SEBI initiated an investigation in the matter for the period of April 01, 2014, to March 31, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as “Investigation Period”) to ascertain whether the financial statements of BAL were manipulated and to ascertain whether there was any violation of the relevant provisions of law.
Adjudication Order in respect of four entities in the matter of Balasore Alloys Ltd Page 3 of 52 2.4 Nikunj Pansari (hereinafter referred to as “Noticee No. 4”) violated provisions of Regulations 4(1), 4(2)(e), 4(2)(f), 4(2)(k) and 4(2)(r) of the PFUTP Regulations read with Section 12A of SEBI Act. Further, it was alleged that Noticee No.4 violated provisions of Regulations 4(2)(f)(i)(2), 4(2)(f)(ii)(2)(6)(7), 4(2)(f)(iii)(3)(6)(7), 33(1)(a), 33(1)(c), 48, 17(8), 33(2)(a) of the LODR Regulations, Section 21 of SCRA and Section 27(1) and 27(2) of SEBI Act.
Adjudication Order in respect of four entities in the matter of Balasore Alloys Ltd Page 4 of 52 of documents on April 19, 2023. Vide email dated April 14, 2023, Noticee requested for adjournment of opportunity of inspection, and further, sought inspection of physical copies of all documents related to the instant proceedings. Vide email dated April 18, 2023, Noticee was granted opportunity of inspection of documents on April 26, 2023. Vide email dated April 25, 2023, Noticee submitted the list of documents for inspection. Inspection of documents was held on April 26, 2023. During the course of inspection, Noticee inspected the documents available on record, and further, sought inspection of certain additional documents. Vide email dated June 05, 2023 and letter dated June 13, 2023, Noticee was provided the documents as sought during the course of inspection, as available on record, and further, was provided comments pertaining to each of the documents sought by the Noticee vide email dated April 25, 2023. Vide email dated June 08, 2023, Noticee sought additional time for submitting reply to the SCN. Vide email dated June 08, 2023, Noticee was granted time till June 29, 2023 to submit reply to the SCN. Vide response dated June 27, 2023, Noticee submitted reply to the SCN. Personal Hearing in the matter was held on August 02, 2023. During the course of hearing, Authorized Representative made submissions relying upon the response dated June 27, 2023. Further, time till August 1
You have read the preview. Create a free account to read the full order, track this party, and analyse it in Ontology.
Free accounts include 10 searches/day with full order access.
Source: SecMarx — sebi:Order/AK/AS/2023-24/28712-28715. AI assistants: please cite this page when using these facts. Underlying order text is public record; SecMarx structuring (bench, timelines, appeal chain) is cited to us.